Epstein v. Epstein

386 So. 2d 1200, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17452
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 29, 1980·No. Nos. 79-1394, 79-1484 and 79-1609·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment of marriage dissolution under review is affirmed and the post-judgment order taxing costs and attorneys fees, also under review, is reversed upon a holding that: (a) the award of the subject installments due the husband through the sale of the Dairy Queen franchise and the award of the husband’s one-half interest in the marital home, although admittedly on the high side, are nonetheless supported by substantial competent evidence in this record as sustainable lump sum alimony awards to the wife which we have no authority to set aside; Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); (b) the award of attorneys fees and costs is not supported by substantial competent evidence as on this record the wife is in a significantly superior financial position, when compared to the husband, to pay her attorneys fees and costs given the highly favorable financial result she has achieved by the final judgment herein. Hill v. Hill, 376 So.2d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Bucci v. Bucci, 350 So.2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Epstein v. Epstein, 386 So. 2d 1200, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17452 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

386 So. 2d 1200 (Epstein v. Epstein) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Fagin
1992 OK 118 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1992)
Yates v. Yates
442 So. 2d 1056 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)